Navigate Obsidian History

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses three behavioral traits: the no-op behavior on an empty stack, the hard dependency on the Local REST API plugin, and the fact that the tool always targets the currently open vault rather than any vault selected via vault.select. This usefully enriches the annotation data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (~65 words), front-loads the core purpose and analogy, then packs direction semantics, no-op behavior, plugin requirement, and the vault.select caveat into two tight paragraphs. No sentence is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the critical execution context: plugin requirement, target vault, stack-empty behavior, and independence from vault.select. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents `direction` with an enum and 100% coverage, the description adds precise semantics for each enum value ('back' = back one step, 'forward' = forward one step) and clarifies the no-op edge case, going beyond the schema's terse description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Navigate') and resource ('Obsidian back/forward file history') and anchors it to an everyday UI analogy ('like the arrow buttons in the top-left'). It is clearly distinct from sibling workspace tools like workspace.openFile and vault.select, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the exact invocation semantics (`direction:'back'` = back one step; `direction:'forward'` = forward one step) and the no-op condition when the stack is empty. It explicitly cautions that vault.select does not affect this tool, which prevents a likely misuse, though it doesn't enumerate broader alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.